PRATT v. JACKSON, No. 1:2009cv02270 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/18/09. (ls, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED NOV 302009 JOHN LEWIS PRATT, Plaintiff, v. G.H. JACKSON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts Civil Action No. 09 2270 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted but the complaint will be dismissed. "Three inter-related judicial doctrines - standing, mootness, and ripeness - ensure that federal courts assert jurisdiction only over 'Cases' and 'Controversies. '" Worth v. Jackson, 451 F.3d 854,855 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). A party has standing ifhis claims "spring from an 'injury in fact' - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is 'concrete and particularized,' 'actual or imminent' and 'fairly traceable' to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court." Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,560-61 (1992)). Plaintiff appears to bring this action on behalf of Eddie D. Pratt, who allegedly was arrested by a police officer in Candor, North Carolina. He is a lay person who is not qualified to appear in this Court on behalf of another person. See 28 U.S.c. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831,834 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Even though plaintiff may represent himself as a pro se litigant, it does not appear that he has sustained an actual injury caused by the named defendant's actions. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of standing. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date. rk±~.~ United States District Judge Date: \ \ I \~ \61
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Terms of Service